Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Here's a question for the linguists among us: Many English translations of Bhagavan's works use the term "I-I" for the Self. Could someone explain what this term really was in Bhagavan's original language(s)? Also, could it be more correct, or equally correct, to translate it as "I am I"? (I just noticed that K. Lakshmana Sarma uses "I am I" and this seems to make more sense.) Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya **************************************** Rob, Namaskar! In Tamil "I-I" would appear as "Nan Nan". Nan = I "I am I" is its english equivalent. In Sri Bhagavan, Adam --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > Here's a question for the linguists among > us: > > Many English translations of Bhagavan's > works use the term "I-I" for the Self. > > Could someone explain what this term > really was in Bhagavan's original > language(s)? > > Also, could it be more correct, or equally > correct, to translate it as "I am I"? > > (I just noticed that K. Lakshmana Sarma > uses "I am I" and this seems to make more > sense.) > > Thank you! > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Dear Adam, Thank you so much! > "I am I" is its english equivalent. Does Tamil (like Russian) lack the copulative "to be"? In other words, if we translate "This boy is James" into Tamil, does the literal equivalent become "This boy James" without a word for "is"? Regards, Rob - "Achala" <ramanachala108 <RamanaMaharshi> Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:23 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > **************************************** > > > > Rob, > > Namaskar! > > In Tamil "I-I" would appear as "Nan Nan". > > Nan = I > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > In Sri Bhagavan, > Adam > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya **************************************** Rob, Does Tamil (like Russian) lack the copulative "to be"? This I don't know. In the works of Sri Bhagavan when he says "I-I" and it is equal to "I am I", I believe it is becouse saying "I" with nothing following it is like saying "I am" not "I am this" or "I am That" just "I am". So to say "I" without anything following it is to say "I am". Also you may recall Sri Bhagavan saying find out from where the "I" rises or what is the source of the "I". "I-I" allows you to find the "I" and holding onto it with "I-I, I-I" lets you see the "I" and gives you the opportunity to find its source or from where it rises. Seeing is being. In Sri Ramana, Adam --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > Dear Adam, > > Thank you so much! > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack > the copulative "to be"? > > In other words, if we translate > "This boy is James" into Tamil, > does the literal equivalent > become "This boy James" without > a word for "is"? > > Regards, > > Rob > > > - > "Achala" <ramanachala108 > <RamanaMaharshi> > Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:23 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > > **************************************** > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > Namaskar! > > > > In Tamil "I-I" would appear as "Nan Nan". > > > > Nan = I > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > > > In Sri Bhagavan, > > Adam > > > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Hi Adam, I just found a nice Tamil instruction site that answers the question by example. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/tamilweb/lessons/lesson1.html The example is: idu = this thing kadavu = door idu kadavu = this is a door. ....suggesting that although English must say "is" explictly, Tamil does not. Following this pattern, "Nan Nan" would be equivalent to "I am I." ....suggesting in turn that when we see "I-I" in books, we are seeing a misleading, over-literal translation. Would still like to hear from Tamil speakers on this. It's early evening here in New York -- almost time for them to wake up! Regards, Rob - "Achala" <ramanachala108 <RamanaMaharshi> Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:10 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > **************************************** > > > > Rob, > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack the copulative > "to be"? > > This I don't know. > > In the works of Sri Bhagavan when he says "I-I" > and it is equal to "I am I", I believe it is becouse > saying "I" with nothing following it is like saying > "I am" not "I am this" or "I am That" just "I am". > > So to say "I" without anything following it is > to say "I am". > > Also you may recall Sri Bhagavan saying find out > from where the "I" rises or what is the source of the > "I". > > "I-I" allows you to find the "I" and holding > onto it with "I-I, I-I" lets you see the "I" and gives > you the opportunity to find its source or from where > it rises. > > Seeing is being. > > > In Sri Ramana, > Adam > > > > > > > --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > > Dear Adam, > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack > > the copulative "to be"? > > > > In other words, if we translate > > "This boy is James" into Tamil, > > does the literal equivalent > > become "This boy James" without > > a word for "is"? > > > > Regards, > > > > Rob > > > > > > - > > "Achala" <ramanachala108 > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:23 PM > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > > > **************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > Namaskar! > > > > > > In Tamil "I-I" would appear as "Nan Nan". > > > > > > Nan = I > > > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > > > > > > In Sri Bhagavan, > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger > http://phonecard./ > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya **************************************** Here Sri Sadhu Om explaines in much simpler words then I was able to do. Notice the last paragragragh dealing with dropping the "am". UPADESA UNDIYAR vesre:20 ... In the place where 'I' (the mind or ego) merges, the one (existence-consciousness) appears spontaneously as 'I-I' (or 'I am I"). That itself is the whole. note: When the mind or ego, the feeling 'I am this' or 'I am that', thus subsides and merges in its source, the real Self, the one true existence- consciousness shines forth spontaneously as 'I-I' or 'I am I', devoid of all superimposed adjuncts such as 'this' or 'that'. This adjunct- less 'I-I', is Self, the absolute reality, the whole. The words nan nan, which are usually translated as 'I-I', may also be taken to mean 'I am I', since in a Tamil sentence such as 'I am this' (nan idu irukkiren) the word am (irukkiren) is generally dropped. ... O how wonderful is the Grace Of Sri Bhagavan that His words may occupy our minds! --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > Hi Adam, > > I just found a nice Tamil instruction site that > answers the question by example. > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/tamilweb/lessons/lesson1.html > > The example is: > > idu = this thing > kadavu = door > idu kadavu = this is a door. > > ...suggesting that although English must say "is" > explictly, Tamil does not. Following this pattern, > "Nan Nan" would be equivalent to "I am I." > > ...suggesting in turn that when we see "I-I" in > books, > we are seeing a misleading, over-literal > translation. > > Would still like to hear from Tamil speakers on > this. It's early evening here in New York -- almost > time for them to wake up! > > Regards, > > Rob > > > > - > "Achala" <ramanachala108 > <RamanaMaharshi> > Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:10 PM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > > **************************************** > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack the > copulative > > "to be"? > > > > This I don't know. > > > > In the works of Sri Bhagavan when he says > "I-I" > > and it is equal to "I am I", I believe it is > becouse > > saying "I" with nothing following it is like > saying > > "I am" not "I am this" or "I am That" just "I am". > > > > > So to say "I" without anything following it > is > > to say "I am". > > > > Also you may recall Sri Bhagavan saying find > out > > from where the "I" rises or what is the source of > the > > "I". > > > > "I-I" allows you to find the "I" and holding > > onto it with "I-I, I-I" lets you see the "I" and > gives > > you the opportunity to find its source or from > where > > it rises. > > > > Seeing is being. > > > > > > In Sri Ramana, > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > > > Dear Adam, > > > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack > > > the copulative "to be"? > > > > > > In other words, if we translate > > > "This boy is James" into Tamil, > > > does the literal equivalent > > > become "This boy James" without > > > a word for "is"? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > - > > > "Achala" <ramanachala108 > > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > > Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:23 PM > > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: > I-I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri > Arunachalaramanaya > > > > > **************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > > > Namaskar! > > > > > > > > In Tamil "I-I" would appear as "Nan Nan". > > > > > > > > Nan = I > > > > > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > > > > > > > > > In Sri Bhagavan, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute > with Messenger > > http://phonecard./ > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: > RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: > RamanaMaharshi- > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Hello, > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack > the copulative "to be"? > > In other words, if we translate > "This boy is James" into Tamil, > does the literal equivalent > become "This boy James" without > a word for "is"? My mother tongue is Tamil. What you say is right. To say "I am I", the 'am' is implied in the language. The default case is the nominative case, and so no frills are needed. You can refer to http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/case/node1.html for a detailed presentation of Cases in Tamil. With regards, Gomu. -- ----------------------------- Email: gomu Phone(Off): +91 44 4466448, 4466449 Phone(Res): +91 44 8140104 Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/gokulmuthu/ ----------------------------- It is better to wear out than to rust out. - Swami Vivekananda ----------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Howdy Adam, I am in awe of your ability to find book references. This should win a prize. Yours in Bhagavan, Rob - "Achala" <ramanachala108 <RamanaMaharshi> Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:37 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > **************************************** > > > Here Sri Sadhu Om explaines in much simpler words > then I was able to do. Notice the last paragragragh > dealing with dropping the "am". > > > > > > UPADESA UNDIYAR > vesre:20 > ... > > In the place where 'I' (the mind or ego) > merges, the one (existence-consciousness) > appears spontaneously as 'I-I' (or 'I am I"). > That itself is the whole. > > > note: When the mind or ego, the feeling 'I am this' > or 'I am that', thus subsides and merges in its > source, the real Self, the one true existence- > consciousness shines forth spontaneously as > 'I-I' or 'I am I', devoid of all superimposed > adjuncts such as 'this' or 'that'. This adjunct- > less 'I-I', is Self, the absolute reality, the > whole. > > The words nan nan, which are usually > translated as 'I-I', may also be taken to mean > 'I am I', since in a Tamil sentence such as > 'I am this' (nan idu irukkiren) the word am > (irukkiren) is generally dropped. > ... > > > > > O how wonderful is the Grace Of Sri Bhagavan that > His words may occupy our minds! > > > > > > --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > > > I just found a nice Tamil instruction site that > > answers the question by example. > > > > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/tamilweb/lessons/lesson1.html > > > > The example is: > > > > idu = this thing > > kadavu = door > > idu kadavu = this is a door. > > > > ...suggesting that although English must say "is" > > explictly, Tamil does not. Following this pattern, > > "Nan Nan" would be equivalent to "I am I." > > > > ...suggesting in turn that when we see "I-I" in > > books, > > we are seeing a misleading, over-literal > > translation. > > > > Would still like to hear from Tamil speakers on > > this. It's early evening here in New York -- almost > > time for them to wake up! > > > > Regards, > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > - > > "Achala" <ramanachala108 > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:10 PM > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > > > **************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack the > > copulative > > > "to be"? > > > > > > This I don't know. > > > > > > In the works of Sri Bhagavan when he says > > "I-I" > > > and it is equal to "I am I", I believe it is > > becouse > > > saying "I" with nothing following it is like > > saying > > > "I am" not "I am this" or "I am That" just "I am". > > > > > > > > So to say "I" without anything following it > > is > > > to say "I am". > > > > > > Also you may recall Sri Bhagavan saying find > > out > > > from where the "I" rises or what is the source of > > the > > > "I". > > > > > > "I-I" allows you to find the "I" and holding > > > onto it with "I-I, I-I" lets you see the "I" and > > gives > > > you the opportunity to find its source or from > > where > > > it rises. > > > > > > Seeing is being. > > > > > > > > > In Sri Ramana, > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > > > > Dear Adam, > > > > > > > > Thank you so much! > > > > > > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > > > > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack > > > > the copulative "to be"? > > > > > > > > In other words, if we translate > > > > "This boy is James" into Tamil, > > > > does the literal equivalent > > > > become "This boy James" without > > > > a word for "is"? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > "Achala" <ramanachala108 > > > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > > > Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:23 PM > > > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: > > I-I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri > > Arunachalaramanaya > > > > > > > **************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > > > > > Namaskar! > > > > > > > > > > In Tamil "I-I" would appear as "Nan Nan". > > > > > > > > > > Nan = I > > > > > > > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Sri Bhagavan, > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute > > with Messenger > > > http://phonecard./ > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > > Subscribe: > > RamanaMaharshi- > > > Un: > > RamanaMaharshi- > > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger > http://phonecard./ > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Hello Gomu, Thank you very much! Best regards, Rob - "Gokulmuthu N." <gokulmuthu <RamanaMaharshi> Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:05 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > Hello, > > > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > > Does Tamil (like Russian) lack > > the copulative "to be"? > > > > In other words, if we translate > > "This boy is James" into Tamil, > > does the literal equivalent > > become "This boy James" without > > a word for "is"? > > My mother tongue is Tamil. What you say is right. To say > "I am I", the 'am' is implied in the language. The default > case is the nominative case, and so no frills are needed. > > You can refer to > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/case/node1.html > for a detailed presentation of Cases in Tamil. > > With regards, > Gomu. > > -- > ----------------------------- > Email: gomu > Phone(Off): +91 44 4466448, 4466449 > Phone(Res): +91 44 8140104 > Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/gokulmuthu/ > ----------------------------- > It is better to wear out than to rust out. - Swami Vivekananda > ----------------------------- > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2001 Report Share Posted August 23, 2001 om namo bhagavate SrI ramaNAya Dear Sri Rob and Sri Adam, It is my understanding that the usage of I - I (nAn nAn) by Ramana is only to indicate what illumines the Heart as I - I - I - I ...... This was also the explanation of one of the speakers who spoke on Bhagavan a year ago during the Ramana Jayanti celebrations in Mumbai. The repeated I - I is only to indicate the ever radiant I that only IS (am?). ------ nAn onrunttAnattu nAn nAn enronradu tAnAgattOnrumE undIpara tanmaya niTTaidundIpara (bhagavAn ramaNA's upadEsa undiyAr, verse no 20)Its translation in my words:(Will get Sri Osborne's translation later and post it) At the place where the I merges, as I - I, another rises on it own. This is the Truth (parama pUrNa sat). The equivalent verse from upadesa sAram is ahaminASabhaji aham aham tayA sphurati hRt swayam parama pUrNa sat. namo ramaNA suri Rob Sacks <editor wrote: Dear Adam, Thank you so much! > "I am I" is its english equivalent. Does Tamil (like Russian) lack the copulative "to be"? In other words, if we translate "This boy is James" into Tamil, does the literal equivalent become "This boy James" without a word for "is"? Regards, Rob - "Achala" <ramanachala108 <RamanaMaharshi> Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:23 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachalaramanaya > **************************************** > > > > Rob, > > Namaskar! > > In Tamil "I-I" would appear as "Nan Nan". > > Nan = I > > "I am I" is its english equivalent. > > > In Sri Bhagavan, > Adam > Sponsor www.nissandriven.com Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat events. Start your own . It's free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2001 Report Share Posted August 23, 2001 Dear Suri, Sri Rob, Sri Adam, 'I - I'...... is the unspoken point from which all language begins and also the point to which all language returns. This is the sequenceless, non-differentiated, natural state (sahaja). Language is solely dependent on this 'I - I'. The Grammarian has said that SabdapUrvayoga ultimately leads us to this Inner Word (sahaja), Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi has said that Atma vichAra ultimately leads us to this (sahaja) state. Both are in full agreement. "In the course of tracing ourselves back to our source, when all thoughts have vanished, there arises a throb from the Hridaya on the right, manifesting as 'Aham' 'Aham' 'I' - 'I'. This is the sign that Pure Consciousness is beginning to reveal itself. But that is not the end in itself. Watch wherefrom this sphurana (throbbing) arises and wait attentively and continually for the revelation of the Self. Then comes the awareness, oneness of existence." (from a reply, approved by Bhagavan, which was sent to an English devotee; recorded in 'Moments Remembered' by V. Ganesan) When, through Self Enquiry, brought about by intense practice, thoughts finally subside, there stands revealed an unbroken, eternal awareness. Without feeling this 'I' - 'I', 'I' - 'I' must remain mere words. "Thoughts must cease and reason disappear for 'I' - 'I' to rise up and be felt. Feeling is the prime factor and not reason." (Talk: 24) "That which is does not even say 'I am'. For, does any doubt rise that 'I am not'. " (from Talk: 197) Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles > om namo bhagavate SrI ramaNAya > Dear Sri Rob and Sri Adam, > It is my understanding that the usage of I - I (nAn nAn) by Ramana is only to > indicate what illumines the Heart as I - I - I - I ...... This was also the > explanation of one of the speakers who spoke on Bhagavan a year ago during the > Ramana Jayanti celebrations in Mumbai. The repeated I - I is only to indicate > the ever radiant I that only IS (am?). > ------ > nAn onrunttAnattu nAn nAn enronradu > tAnAgattOnrumE undIpara > tanmaya niTTaidundIpara > (bhagavAn ramaNA's upadEsa undiyAr, verse no 20)Its translation in my > words:(Will get Sri Osborne's translation later and post it) > At the place where the I merges, as I - I, another > rises on it own. > This is the Truth (parama pUrNa sat). > The equivalent verse from upadesa sAram is > ahaminASabhaji aham aham tayA > sphurati hRt swayam > parama pUrNa sat. > namo ramaNA > suri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2001 Report Share Posted August 24, 2001 om namo bhagavate SrI ramaNAYa Dear Sri Miles, I posted my mail without reading the many other mails that were posted on 'I' - 'I'. Now I have done so. Thank you for the mail quoting the words approved by Bhagavan Ramana. Surely the words > 'I - I'...... is the unspoken point from which all language begins > and also the point to which all language returns. sum up the lively discussions we have had so far. namo ramaNA Yours in sri Bhagavan, suri ======== Miles Wright <ramana.bhakta wrote: Dear Suri, Sri Rob, Sri Adam, 'I - I'...... is the unspoken point from which all language begins and also the point to which all language returns. This is the sequenceless, non-differentiated, natural state (sahaja). Language is solely dependent on this 'I - I'. The Grammarian has said that SabdapUrvayoga ultimately leads us to this Inner Word (sahaja), Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi has said that Atma vichAra ultimately leads us to this (sahaja) state. Both are in full agreement. "In the course of tracing ourselves back to our source, when all thoughts have vanished, there arises a throb from the Hridaya on the right, manifesting as 'Aham' 'Aham' 'I' - 'I'. This is the sign that Pure Consciousness is beginning to reveal itself. But that is not the end in itself. Watch wherefrom this sphurana (throbbing) arises and wait attentively and continually for the revelation of the Self. Then comes the awareness, oneness of existence." (from a reply, approved by Bhagavan, which was sent to an English devotee; recorded in 'Moments Remembered' by V. Ganesan) When, through Self Enquiry, brought about by intense practice, thoughts finally subside, there stands revealed an unbroken, eternal awareness. Without feeling this 'I' - 'I', 'I' - 'I' must remain mere words. "Thoughts must cease and reason disappear for 'I' - 'I' to rise up and be felt. Feeling is the prime factor and not reason." (Talk: 24) "That which is does not even say 'I am'. For, does any doubt rise that 'I am not'. " (from Talk: 197) Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles > om namo bhagavate SrI ramaNAya > Dear Sri Rob and Sri Adam, > It is my understanding that the usage of I - I (nAn nAn) by Ramana is only to > indicate what illumines the Heart as I - I - I - I ...... This was also the > explanation of one of the speakers who spoke on Bhagavan a year ago during the > Ramana Jayanti celebrations in Mumbai. The repeated I - I is only to indicate > the ever radiant I that only IS (am?). > ------ > nAn onrunttAnattu nAn nAn enronradu > tAnAgattOnrumE undIpara > tanmaya niTTaidundIpara > (bhagavAn ramaNA's upadEsa undiyAr, verse no 20)Its translation in my > words:(Will get Sri Osborne's translation later and post it) > At the place where the I merges, as I - I, another > rises on it own. > This is the Truth (parama pUrNa sat). > The equivalent verse from upadesa sAram is > ahaminASabhaji aham aham tayA > sphurati hRt swayam > parama pUrNa sat. > namo ramaNA > suri Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat events. Start your own . It's free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2001 Report Share Posted August 24, 2001 Dear Sri Miles, A wonderful collection of citations you've assembled for us! Thank you But now I notice that Bhagavan is quoted here as saying "Aham Aham." So here are two new questions: did he sometimes say this in Sanskrit and sometimes in Tamil? Does Sanskrit, like Tamil, omit the explicit verb "am" that is found in the English statement "I am I"? (In other words, does "Aham Aham" translate unambiguously as "I I" or can it also mean "I am I"?) Best regards, Rob - "Miles Wright" <ramana.bhakta <RamanaMaharshi> Thursday, August 23, 2001 6:47 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > Dear Suri, Sri Rob, Sri Adam, > > 'I - I'...... is the unspoken point from which all language begins > and also the point to which all language returns. This is the sequenceless, > non-differentiated, natural state (sahaja). Language is solely dependent on > this 'I - I'. > > The Grammarian has said that SabdapUrvayoga ultimately leads us to > this Inner Word (sahaja), Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi has said that Atma > vichAra ultimately leads us to this (sahaja) state. Both are in full > agreement. > > "In the course of tracing ourselves back to our source, when all > thoughts have vanished, there arises a throb from the Hridaya on the right, > manifesting as 'Aham' 'Aham' 'I' - 'I'. This is the sign that Pure > Consciousness is beginning to reveal itself. But that is not the end in > itself. Watch wherefrom this sphurana (throbbing) arises and wait > attentively and continually for the revelation of the Self. Then comes the > awareness, oneness of existence." (from a reply, approved by Bhagavan, which > was sent to an English devotee; recorded in 'Moments Remembered' by V. > Ganesan) > > When, through Self Enquiry, brought about by intense practice, > thoughts finally subside, there stands revealed an unbroken, eternal > awareness. Without feeling this 'I' - 'I', 'I' - 'I' must remain mere words. > > "Thoughts must cease and reason disappear for 'I' - 'I' to rise up > and be felt. Feeling is the prime factor and not reason." (Talk: 24) > > "That which is does not even say 'I am'. For, does any doubt rise > that 'I am not'. " (from Talk: 197) > > Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, > Miles > > > om namo bhagavate SrI ramaNAya > > Dear Sri Rob and Sri Adam, > > It is my understanding that the usage of I - I (nAn nAn) by Ramana is only to > > indicate what illumines the Heart as I - I - I - I ...... This was also the > > explanation of one of the speakers who spoke on Bhagavan a year ago during the > > Ramana Jayanti celebrations in Mumbai. The repeated I - I is only to indicate > > the ever radiant I that only IS (am?). > > ------ > > nAn onrunttAnattu nAn nAn enronradu > > tAnAgattOnrumE undIpara > > tanmaya niTTaidundIpara > > (bhagavAn ramaNA's upadEsa undiyAr, verse no 20)Its translation in my > > words:(Will get Sri Osborne's translation later and post it) > > At the place where the I merges, as I - I, another > > rises on it own. > > This is the Truth (parama pUrNa sat). > > The equivalent verse from upadesa sAram is > > ahaminASabhaji aham aham tayA > > sphurati hRt swayam > > parama pUrNa sat. > > namo ramaNA > > suri > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2001 Report Share Posted August 24, 2001 Dear Sri Rob, > But now I notice that Bhagavan is quoted here > as saying "Aham Aham." Had the quotation been "Aham Aham" it might have been translated as "I am I", however the quotation is "... 'Aham' 'Aham'...". There seems to be no room for ambiguity here. Further, Sri Bhagavan has clearly stated that: "Thoughts must cease and reason disappear for 'I' - 'I' to rise up and be felt. Feeling is the prime factor and not reason." (Talk: 24) and, "That which is does not even say 'I am'. For, does any doubt rise that 'I am not'. " (from Talk: 197) The Self does not say 'I am' but rather that is the eternal state of the Self. 'I' - 'I' is a representation of that which exists prior to linguistic phenomenon. This representation 'I' - 'I' signals that which is neither spoken nor thought of. It is the Ultimate Universal into which all cognitions are resolved. As such, 'I am I' exists only in the linguistic realms of VaikharI (audible and articulate speech) and perhaps in MadhyamA (form of thought with no definite word presence), where it is possible to observe the differentiation of subject/subject or subject/object... At this point, I am reminded of another of Sri Bhagavan's statements, recorded in Talk 519, which seems pertinent here: "The mahavakyas and their interpretation lead to interminable discussions and keep the minds of the seekers engaged externally. To turn the mind inward the man must directly settle down in the 'I'. Then there is an end of external activities and perfect Peace prevails." Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2001 Report Share Posted August 25, 2001 - Miles Wright RamanaMaharshi Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:51 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I Dear Sri Rob, > But now I notice that Bhagavan is quoted here > as saying "Aham Aham." Had the quotation been "Aham Aham" it might have been translated as "I am I", however the quotation is "... 'Aham' 'Aham'...". There seems to be no room for ambiguity here. Further, Sri Bhagavan has clearly stated that: "Thoughts must cease and reason disappear for 'I' - 'I' to rise up and be felt. Feeling is the prime factor and not reason." (Talk: 24) and, "That which is does not even say 'I am'. For, does any doubt rise that 'I am not'. " (from Talk: 197) The Self does not say 'I am' but rather that is the eternal state of the Self. 'I' - 'I' is a representation of that which exists prior to linguistic phenomenon. This representation 'I' - 'I' signals that which is neither spoken nor thought of. It is the Ultimate Universal into which all cognitions are resolved. As such, 'I am I' exists only in the linguistic realms of VaikharI (audible and articulate speech) and perhaps in MadhyamA (form of thought with no definite word presence), where it is possible to observe the differentiation of subject/subject or subject/object... At this point, I am reminded of another of Sri Bhagavan's statements, recorded in Talk 519, which seems pertinent here: "The mahavakyas and their interpretation lead to interminable discussions and keep the minds of the seekers engaged externally. To turn the mind inward the man must directly settle down in the 'I'. Then there is an end of external activities and perfect Peace prevails." Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2001 Report Share Posted August 25, 2001 Pardon me, I hit reply instead of forward. Gloria PS Vicki,I am sending your quotes to HS, as well. - Gloria Lee RamanaMaharshi Saturday, August 25, 2001 10:43 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I - Miles Wright RamanaMaharshi Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:51 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2001 Report Share Posted August 25, 2001 Dear Sri Miles, Thanks for the additional references. It's good to hear your elucidation of Bhagavan's teachings on this point, and I have no doubt that you're correct. However, my question wasn't about Bhagavan's teachings, but rather, only about Sanskrit. I was wondering (as I had wondered earlier about Tamil) whether it uses an explicit copulative verb in statements such as "I am I" or "He is my brother". One comment, though: > Had the quotation been "Aham Aham" it > might have been translated as "I am > I", however the quotation is "... 'Aham' 'Aham'...". > There seems to be no room for ambiguity here... Those quotation marks are apparently speaking to you in a voice to which I am deaf. I have no idea what they are supposed to suggest. I also wonder who decided to place them there; whether Bhagavan approved; whether they are there because they are used differently in another language and somebody carried them over into English; etc. Best regards, Rob - "Miles Wright" <ramana.bhakta <RamanaMaharshi> Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:51 AM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > Dear Sri Rob, > > > But now I notice that Bhagavan is quoted here > > as saying "Aham Aham." > > Had the quotation been "Aham Aham" it might have been translated as "I am > I", however the quotation is "... 'Aham' 'Aham'...". There seems to be no > room for ambiguity here. Further, Sri Bhagavan has clearly stated that: > > "Thoughts must cease and reason disappear for 'I' - 'I' to rise up and be > felt. Feeling is the prime factor and not reason." (Talk: 24) > > and, > > "That which is does not even say 'I am'. For, does any doubt rise that 'I am > not'. " (from Talk: 197) > > The Self does not say 'I am' but rather that is the eternal state of the > Self. 'I' - 'I' is a representation of that which exists prior to linguistic > phenomenon. This representation 'I' - 'I' signals that which is neither > spoken nor thought of. It is the Ultimate Universal into which all > cognitions are resolved. As such, 'I am I' exists only in the linguistic > realms of VaikharI (audible and articulate speech) and perhaps in MadhyamA > (form of thought with no definite word presence), where it is possible to > observe the differentiation of subject/subject or subject/object... At this > point, I am reminded of another of Sri Bhagavan's statements, recorded in > Talk 519, which seems pertinent here: > > "The mahavakyas and their interpretation lead to interminable discussions > and keep the minds of the seekers engaged externally. To turn the mind > inward the man must directly settle down in the 'I'. Then there is an end of > external activities and perfect Peace prevails." > > Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, > Miles > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2001 Report Share Posted August 25, 2001 Dear Sri Rob, > I was wondering (as I had wondered earlier about Tamil) > whether it uses an explicit copulative verb in > statements such as "I am I" or "He is my brother". No. It is not necessary. > I also wonder who decided to place them there; whether > Bhagavan approved; whether they are there because > they are used differently in another language and > somebody carried them over into English; etc. Quotation marks, as such, are not used in Sanskrit. Usually the word ' iti ' would be used. Sri V. Ganesan tells us, in Moments Remembered, that the letter, from which the quote was taken, was approved by Sri Bhagavan. Other references (quoted) suggest that 'I am I', while it may be a viable translation, is perhaps not the most appropriate one. I only offer my feeling on the matter. Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2001 Report Share Posted August 25, 2001 Dear Sri Miles, Thanks for the additional information. Much appreciated. > Other references (quoted) suggest that > 'I am I', while it may be a viable > translation, is perhaps not the most > appropriate one. I only offer my > feeling on the matter. I think you've presented the matter very persuasively. You know more about this than I do, so my opinion isn't worth much, but I think you're right. Best regards, Rob - "Miles Wright" <ramana.bhakta <RamanaMaharshi> Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:09 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Language question: I-I > Dear Sri Rob, > > > I was wondering (as I had wondered earlier about Tamil) > > whether it uses an explicit copulative verb in > > statements such as "I am I" or "He is my brother". > > No. It is not necessary. > > > I also wonder who decided to place them there; whether > > Bhagavan approved; whether they are there because > > they are used differently in another language and > > somebody carried them over into English; etc. > > Quotation marks, as such, are not used in Sanskrit. Usually the word ' iti ' > would be used. Sri V. Ganesan tells us, in Moments Remembered, that the > letter, from which the quote was taken, was approved by Sri Bhagavan. Other > references (quoted) suggest that 'I am I', while it may be a viable > translation, is perhaps not the most appropriate one. I only offer my > feeling on the matter. > > Ever Yours in Sri Bhagavan, > Miles > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.